TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stout v. State

Stout v. State.

Stout v. State, 248 P.2d 1059 (Okla. Crim. App. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 8, 1952
Docket
No. A-11700
Judges
Brett, Jones, Powell
Citations
248 P.2d 105996 Okla. Crim. 88
Syllabus
(Syllabus.) Appeal and Error — Affirmance in Absence of Briefs or Appearance. When no counsel appears and no briefs are filed, the Court will examine the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the exceptions taken thereto, and the judgment and sentence, and if no prejudicial error appears will affirm the judgment.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Brett

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BRETT, P. J.

Plaintiff in error Leon D. Stout, defendant below, was charged in the district court of Tulsa county, Oklahoma, with the commission of the crime of unlawfully, wilfully, lewdly and feloniously exposing his person and private parts at a certain public place described in said information as being in the city of Tulsa, Tulsa county, Oklahoma, to a certain named young lady. The offense was alleged to have occurred on April 10, 1951. The defendant was tried by a jury, convicted and his punishment fixed at a term of 2 years in the penitentiary ; judgment and sentence was entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

The appeal in this case was lodged herein on January 7, 1952. The ease was docketed on April 9, 1952, for oral argument on May 28, 1952. No briefs were filed and no one appeared on said date for oral argument, and the case was submitted for disposition on the record. When such appears to be the condition of the record in a case pending herein, this court will examine the record for jurisdictional errors, examine the pleadings, the instructions and objections and exceptions thereto, the judgment and sentence, and if no prejudicial error appears will affirm the judgment and sentence. Bell v. State, 85 Okla. Cr. 150 , 186 P. 2d 344 ; Ford v. State, 90 Okla. Cr. 387 , 214 P. 2d 462 .

In addition to checking the foregoing, because of the nature of the case and the fact that such charges are so easily made and so difficult to defend against, we have examined the evidence. The evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury and the charge as laid in the information. For all the above and foregoing reasons and under the rules of this court, the judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

JONES and POWELL, JJ„ concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1956: 21966: 119562026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Williams v. State1956 OK CR 117, 303 P.2d 980
  2. Hill v. State1956 OK CR 29, 294 P.2d 866
  3. State v. Wyant222 A.2d 815 (Conn. App. Ct. 1966)

Most recent

  1. State v. Wyant222 A.2d 815 (Conn. App. Ct. 1966)
  2. Williams v. State1956 OK CR 117, 303 P.2d 980
  3. Hill v. State1956 OK CR 29, 294 P.2d 866

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Bell v. State, 1947 OK CR 125, 186 P.2d 344 6
Ford v. State, 1950 OK CR 17, 214 P.2d 462 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list